The reason I like this song is multifaceted. I had just heard it on the Radio not too long ago, and the music video is not good because it ruins the musical shade on the meaning. It's just, not capturing the song the way I see it. It's unrepentant. It's the modern age, unrepentant. It's not sarcastic; it rather basks in the glory of sin. It's saying, "I did this, and I'm not going to say sorry." And in doing that, it shows how desperate our civilization is, making the point that the Music Video doesn't have to; rather, the music video is too moral bearing and not journalistic enough. The song as it is naturally makes its point---shaded by an unrepentant beat, an unrepentant soul, an unrepentant sinner praying in the golden cathedral for the faithless. It's upbeat, about screwing over the other guy in order to get where you are going. And "It's ok." The song doesn't need to bear a moral weight. All of our songs are like this. They just say, "Screw it, I'm going to be bad." And I like it because it's honest. It's easy to know how messed up it is. The writer of this song is obviously unrepentant about being successful---"If you lose, boo-hoo." Panic at the Disco does a good rendition of it, but secretly, like a few Johnny Cash songs I know, they probably didn't write it. Johnny always wrote his songs, but surprisingly was the talent behind a lot of our most famous grooves, and you'd never know it. The ethos of the song is unrepentant, and the pathos is too overbearing. It's just flagrant, spiteful, not angry, just flagrant. And I LOVE IT! Because I feel like everyone I know is like this. I feel like our whole society has to be this way in order to make end's meat. I love it because it captures exactly how I feel about modern society. And, journalistically---that being a style without the moral expressly stated---it makes sense in our modern ethos to have a song like this. Halsey did a good job in a few of her poems at doing this, but it's too dank and depressing. It's not glorious enough. It's not that glorious future that you get if you just say "F____ off" to everything, and then go on living your life not caring about how it affects the people you love. And then "Hey look ma I made it!" He's singing the chorus to his mother, who is probably seething and chomping at the bit to just smack that boy across the behind. Not because he made it, but because he compromised all of his virtue doing it. It's beautiful, how "Ma, look at me! I'm successful!" and Ma is looking back at him, seeing whatever revelry had to be done to get there. She's thinking, "I'd rather you be poor and a rat, being honest, than to be successful screwing over everyone who ever loved you." And that is our modern age. I love this song because it just captures it without any hesitation. There isn't a beat missed, there isn't a groove missed, that doesn't say, "Hey look Ma I made it!" The puppet didn't need to be there, because this isn't a puppet. This is not a puppet at all. This is an unrepentant, flagrant, "Hey look ma I made it!" I like our modern music for this reason, but I would like to see something more sentimental. I'm getting tired of the whole, "I'm bad and I'm not going to care about it." Because it's getting boring. I'm tired of hearing songs accusing the listener of all their hidden sins, or on the flip, encouraging people to be bitter and petty. I'm tired of it. And with this song, I think we've captured it all, the portrait Halsey couldn't paint. The portrait that a lot of singers and songwriters couldn't. "I'm having fun, therefore I don't care about who I hurt." Halsey comes at a close second, but this song by Panic at the Disco really just grooves it. Other songs are singing about women wearing blades in their bras, and how they can fight a man. But this song just grooves, and seethes with this generation of America. It is the alter call of American civilization. "Hey look Ma I made it! And if you lose, boo-hoo." Panic at the Disco. "Hey Look Ma I Made It". Pray For the Wicked. Fueled By Ramen, DCD2, 2019. Radio.
Category: Analysis
Analysis of the Herb Leech by Joseph Campbell
I've seen in this writer something prophetic. Some kind of insight. I did not know he was writing so contemporary; I thought he was writing in the eighteen hundreds. Generally, the reason why I'm so interested in it is the schema of a very normal delusion, that being a brain parasite of some sort that causes the illness of Schizophrenia. So, this is what influenced my poem about the "Yeerk"; was I read this poem the Herb-Leech in my Barnes and Nobles' leather bound A Treasury of Irish Literature, and was like, "Well, I'm having really bad dreams, and have a lot of problems with xyz." And, there must be some mythological reference here to a mythology that Joseph Campbell once read. But the poem is talking about dreams, and the fact is that they have a reach into the person's mental health. When a delusion enters into the dream sphere, it begins to reach into the conscious and begins to be believed. And the mythology, literally here, is not so much being believed, but rather is manifesting in the dream. But, the poem is definitely dealing with Schizophrenia. And "Schizophrenia" is often not having a filter in day to day activity. That means that everything is going to be interpreted as it is, and the brain is going to put all that information together. A good example of this is the rotating mask. The Schizophrenic sees it rotating the correct way, but the normal mind sees it with a filter which makes the illusion as if it span in both directions. So, Schizophrenia is a lack of having those filters. At the end of the song, there's talk of the Murrain Stone. That right there, "Murrain" means sickness. It's speaking of mental illness, specifically, schizophrenia. Because anyone who believes, and I quote "All things on earth/to me are known" because of the "Murrain Stone", then it's obviously saying outright a man does not have omnipotence with this line. The poem is rather talking about Schizophrenia, with regard to an omnipotence delusion. It's impossible for a man to know all things, so the poem is talking about something else. Which, seeing he got conflated with other religions---and this is why I really would discourage people from learning about religions other than Christianity---is that he must have picked up a delusion from believing in Folk Tales, giving him the "Murrain Stone." Or Schizophrenia. Because experience with the Mythological---as he puts it in an essay I was doing research on---is something I think ought not happen. There's only one God, that's Jesus Christ. And there's a ton of other religions that are not Jesus Christ. They have other revelations, and it is a sickness when they are revealed; that is, if the magic of the superstition reveals itself it is a sickness. When I look at this, my mind thinks of the "Yeerks", as if they were some kind of schizophrenic pathogen. As if the mental illness of Joseph Campbell, by reading into Mythology too much---because that is where the pathogen takes root---is being likened to a Brain Leech of some kind. As if mythology can be a pathogenic cause of schizophrenia; which Campbell would not accept this thought, but I find it accurate. There are other pathogens, too, like the Truman Show, or generally speaking any source of literature that skews the mind from the one solitary truth, and that is Christ. Which, now the poem makes sense, that the Herb-Leech is his Schizophrenia. It is a delusion he's dealing with, something similar to a Yeerk, and Schizophrenia can be metaphorically linked to this science fiction concept. Which, the way to beat it, and the path to a healthy lifestyle, are to overcome the illness with love. To simply love; that is actively work at becoming a better and more empathetic person. Because I believe it is something like the "Error of Balaam" as talked about in the Bible. He was a so called "Prophet" and named his prophecies, but it is was then reinforced when he saw a Donkey talk. Delusory tendencies, with research to back them up with schemas, then start manifesting in negative behaviors such as fortune telling, and then when some of those predictions might come true it can lead to OCD or Post Traumatic Stress. Which, ultimately brings the illness to a much worse standing when the things we've fortune told came true. It makes us believe we have power. Which, seeing his mentions here of the different myths that must have spurred it on, I think his dreams are actually spurring on the mythologies. That maybe he has some latent understanding of them, forgets them, dreams them, and then finds them, reinforcing the schizophrenia. Which, external stimuli that proves a delusion drives someone mad, into the depths of Schizophrenic tendencies. It's imperative that one understand that, and try their best not to prove a Schizophrenic's delusions. Because external stimuli that proves a delusion, will only reinforce the delusion, making it stronger in the individual. So, the Herb-Leech is Joseph Campbell's mental illness. Campbell, Joseph. "The Herb Leech". A Treasury of Irish Literature. Sterling Publishing Co., Barnes and Nobles Classics Edition, 2017. Text.
A Discourse on “Second Coming” By William Butler Yeats
Oddly enough, I wrote a poem about the "Sphynx" and it's an image about the apocalypse. Which, I came to this poem by William Butler Yeats, and he mentioned "Spiritus Mundi", which would be something similar to my description of the "Davidic Archetype". To avoid any unnecessary discourse, "Spiritus Mundi" means "Spirit World", but the two concepts are identical. And, I can't get through this, how interesting it is that I come up with a poem about the Sphynx, twisting its shoulder blades even, almost exactly the same idea and imagery. The notion of the Sphynx in my mythology came from a weird hybrid animal born in a lab. Of course, Yeats describes the Sphinx, but doesn't say that's what it is. I know, from having pictures of Egypt, what a Sphynx looks like, but I arrived at the conclusion from YouTube. It's interesting to me. What's even more interesting is how the LORD says, "By two or three witnesses my Law shall be established." I would never expect to see another poem relating the Sphynx in so similar a fashion, especially linking it to End Days Eschatology. The poem is misinterpreted, though. Yeat's ethos skewed the meaning of the poem. The poem is not saying that the "Sphynx" is Christ, but rather the "Sphynx" is coming to gobble up the child. It's plain to me that's what the poem means, even if the Poet was unintentional in describing it. That would be the Seventh Trumpet when the Dragon tries to swallow up the Child Christ. Which, Egypt is likened to a Dragon or Serpent in the Scripture's poetry; so, it's very likely that the Sphynx archetype is being used here in two distinct places to describe something specific. As Hosea says, the Prophets speak in similitudes, that would mean parables. The story here is imperative. Perhaps the Sphynx in Egypt has something to do with the Dragon of Egypt or the Nile. It's interesting to me that both poets, myself and Yeats, come to this imagination cogently and lucidly, separately, and without having read one another's poems. Yeats, William Butler. "The Second Coming." Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming. 2/13/22. Web.
How To Interpret Fairyland
There is a philosophical concept I want the reader to understand, first and foremost. That is Nihilism, Solipsism, Last Thursdayism, Mind in a Vat---etc, etc, etc,. In other words, absurd claims in philosophy. Nihilism is the thought that there are no morals. Solipsism is the thought that only you exist. Last Thursdayism is the thought that everything was created last Thursday, and our memories are simply inherited, and are not real. Mind in a Vat is that we are in a computer program, etc. So... there's one common theme and element in all of this. It is the element of untruth. We know, without a doubt, that morals exist. We know without a doubt that Last Thursday was not the beginning of the universe. We know, without a doubt---with the most amount of evidence than the others---that we are not alone. We know, without a doubt, that we are not in a computer program. And the reason for this is quite simple. There is something in us, hardwired even, to say that the empirical world we observe is true. It's in us to say some other things, as well. So, all of these claims are purely philosophical in nature. Yes. We know they are absurd. Yes. We know that they are unable to be proven true. Yes. Or false. Yes. They are simply thought experiments. Yes. So, onto some other noteworthy, and actually believed notions. The Earth is flat. We have ample sources, satellite photos, astronauts, even ocean cartography among other things, to safely assume that the earth is not flat. It is a little harder to be convinced that this is true---just a little, but enough to make foolish people believe it. So, at the core, there would have to be an entire conspiracy of all governments of the world keeping it secret that the Earth is flat, if it really were. So, keep this in mind. Then, there is evolution. We don't have direct evidence of it. But, we have a cadre, a very large cadre, of people who inherently believe that Evolution is not true. And the reason for this is religiously motivated. Now, I'm more religious than these because I don't think God is proven false or true based on the existence of a theory like Evolution. It's really not a thing to consider, but Christians consider it and look mighty foolish doing so. So, the idea that evolution does not exist, falls into these categories. But, there's more. Conspiracy Theories. Now we get to the meat and potatoes, that every American will believe, at some point, a conspiracy theory of some kind. JFK assassination, Big Foot, Moon Landing, Illuminati, Lizard Kings, etc. etc. etc. And, we get the same kinds of problems with this as we do the previous. It's all built on data that is interpreted in a way that is not accurate. For there to be a conspiracy, there'd have to be a lot of things happening that would be impossible to hide. So... it's all ideas based in some solid sociology, but the cause is being attributed to a few people, when it, in this case, should be attributed to the society as a whole. For not respecting Democracy, for letting themselves be fooled by Entertainment. For simply desiring their lives to be a lot more interesting than they actually are. In other words, Conspiracy Theories are cultural delusions meant to spice life up for the average Joe, and imprint on the society the ills of the individual. So... we get to the ultimate schema. Fairyland. It is the culmination of all of these. It allows all of it to be true. There is a Jontunheim underneath the earth. If we're in space, it's because we're in a jewel like galaxy created by giants. If there is magic, it's because of xyz. So... I'm sure a lot of Fairyland will be proven false. Some of it will be proven true. And like any theory, there will be mental gymnastics to make it exist. As is the case with Conspiracy Theories, Flat Earthers, Moon Landing Deniers, 9/11 Truthers. The fact remains that it is probably not true. 9/11 was more than likely perpetrated by foreign powers wanting to drive America to the ground. The earth is probably not flat. Giants probably don't exist. So... there encounters a problem with Religion, specifically Christianity, to believe in Flat Earths, Evolution's untruth, among other things. And if this is true, then Fairyland must be true. Because we no longer live in an accidental world---that doesn't mean by accident; it just means it is caused. We then live in a magical world. And the point of Fairyland is to simply say, "I don't know if it exists or not. But, I don't believe it does because it doesn't make sense with reality." So... what does Fairyland mean. That's the more important aspect. It is no longer metaphysical, but it is rather metaphorical. It means something. Medea does not exist. But, the Internet and Television do exist. Brittos does not exist. But, people have to fight a battle against the entertainment they consume in order to win the day, and stay a Christian. Giants do not exist. But, people have uncanny lusts for life that will make them more likely to commit wrongdoing just to have a better life. Orcs don't exist, but there are extremely violent people. Elves don't exist, but there are people who lust, and would accept any gross technology that could be conceived because it will give them more opportunity to do gross things that will please them in the short run. There is no such thing as Leviathan---a three kilometer long Sea Conch---but there is death, and an afterlife. There is no such thing as Thor---but there is a desire to leave here, and go some place different, new, strange, lusty. There is no such thing as Fairies---but there is an artificial reality created on the television and internet. There is no such thing as Somodivas, but there are women who are more interested in their freedom than actual love; and more often they are beautiful and wildly dangerous to court. There are no such things as Dragons, but there is such a thing as misers and people who will destroy everything just to enrich themselves. With that being said, that is how Fairyland is to be interpreted. It's not likely that these things exist in reality. Nethanim more than likely are not real. But, I am real. And these stories are there to help me overcome the theories noted above... all bound together in Fairyland. Because there it is an ultimate schema that must be wrestled with. There, anything is possible in the real world of Fairyland, which is the mental world of the author, or the Nethanim. Which is why it's dangerous to believe the above because they take the blame off of the actual problem. That is the person, the individual---because people often search for Fairyland for a purpose. A notable author, T. S. Eliot had his famous character Prufrock drown himself looking for this. I can see no other metaphor to draw from it. It's interesting how archetypal this is... what I'm dealing with. But, you can drown yourself looking for the Fairyland, when you need to be grounded in the actual land you're standing on. Rather, Fairyland is there to explain psychology. Not reality. And the above theories are all Fairyland. They are all mental movies and delusions the person who entertains them are living. They are defense mechanisms, they are binding all of our hate into an effigy, much like the secret societies do that we critique. But, they, in a sense, are Fairyland. Far away, removed, and kind of there dancing around Moloch, in their crazed delusions. Which, real or not, they only have power if they suck you into it too. Which is why Fairyland is much like Solipsism or Last Thursdayism. It's a thought experiment meant to help you escape the so called Magical Reality, which is in all truth a delusion shared by a population. And these foes are dangerous. Don't get me wrong. Just, they're dangerous in a different way. Rather than attack you physically, they attack you mentally. And if mentally, you start making bad decisions. And that's how we get Trump in office. That's how we run Hillary against him. That's how we pass bills in Congress that are troubling like the Real ID or Healthcare Mandate. And we must remember that the Founding Fathers fought against something tangible. A tax. It was not boogiemen. Had it been, it would have been a war that couldn't be won. And in the intellectual battleground, we need to rid ourselves of the boogiemen in order to see the real problem, which is just human corruption creeping in at every level of government. And that being conflated with Fairyland is dangerous because Fairyland to a rational human being doesn't exist. Neither do conspiracies or Moral Nihilism. They are fringe doctrines, and I'm afraid that no war needs fought right now. But, these corruptions within the leaderships is letting open a door for wars, and unnecessary conflicts which could threaten the Earth. So, the foes to fight are internal. That's Fairyland. It's internal, not external. It's a battle for thoughts, not steel. And if we understand that, I think we'll learn why stories are so important for a society. Because they are one of the foremost ways we define evil, and we can also use it to stand against evil. But seeing the bad guy on Avengers Hail Hydra---which is Hitler, like, that's what it is---it's not the foe we need to fight. The foe we need to fight is within us.
The Davadic Archetype
I happened upon Peter Pan while trying to convince a group of youths that it has an objective meaning. And while reading Peter Pan's sequels, I came across something very strange. There was mention of a "David", who was, as the author put it, a Moralist. And of course David and he were always making stories, and perpetually having this exchange of ideas... What was funny was that it could have come out of one of my stories. I've come independently to the "David" theme in my writing, and it's interesting to me that someone else has, too. So... why do two completely different authors, two authors from different centuries, even, come to the same, prevailing idea? That there is this person named "David" who has a share in our work. And of course, this Author resisted David--- they were his stories, not David's. Who is David? Why do two people come to this very same archetype, latent deep in the subconscious mind? I had deleted two essays, and I mean to put them both here. There was another phenomena that was quite similar. After reading Seamus Heaney's version of Beowulf, I had written my own version of Beowulf. And, I did what the 9th century author did, I infused Pagan Mythology with Christian Mythology, and then read four cantos of Paradise Lost, and saw, almost eerily, we both we writing the same tradition. His were shape shifting Demons, mine were shape shifting elves using alien technology---both were demonic entities, which, in both, must actually be fought. So, this is two times the state of fact came, that I was independently coming upon things that other authors have touched upon at different times, in different ways... David being one of them, and of course Paradise Lost's mythology, which lined up perfectly with mine. So, I believe this is proof of communication. Which, proves that ideas---I'm not sure why this had to be proved, but apparently it does need proved---actually occur beyond that of the most visceral levels. The fact that I could write something like Hail Britannica, come upon this Davidic Archetype, create Elves---and this is all after reading works of literature like Bulfinch's Mythology, Wordsworth, Beowulf, Edith Hamilton's Mythology, Plato, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, a lot of the Bible, literature like Jane Austen or Leo Tolstoy, etc. etc. etc. I came upon independently two ideas independently reached by other authors. So... there's other things going on here, too, but the real issue is that when I confronted a bunch of young women on Peter Pan's meaning---expressly stated at the first few lines of the novel even---they became disgruntled. They denied that there could be a meaning, and they believed that it was all theory. Right... but how am I communicating ideas I've never entertained independently of having entertained the ideas in their purest form? Simply put, how am I writing about the same things as authors I've never actually read? And that's a question, that no matter what it proves communication. Even the most absurd theory would have to admit there is some kind of communication happening, on a level deeper than the rudimentary one we often associate communication with. And, foremost, why David? It's interesting that David even comes up in Barrie's writing, and in my own fixed beliefs I had believed there was someone named "David" writing my work. And I realized, at the most rudimentary level, there was. David, in Christian Theology---because you can't use Mythology here---is the Messiah Conqueror. He is the coming Christ. He is the Shepherd. And in Ecclesiastes, it has something here to even say: "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd." So, what it proves is wisdom... universal ideas latent in the human psyche even. Jung would call them Archetypes, I'd call it wisdom. Universal ideas prevalent in writing, and David---when you've gotten to be a storyteller---might just be the Gatekeeper of the stories. You write for Christ. And of course, the author here might be resisting that call, which he says "David is a Moralist". He gives a story, which involves a creative memory---and here I begin to outline, that the story written by Barrie here, the Peter Pan sequel, is not canonical to the actual myth of Peter Pan. It's rather, schizophrenic in its delivery, and maybe the reason why is because it didn't get approved by the gatekeeper, David. Maybe when someone builds a life in stories, they begin to see---if it's truly wisdom---a pattern that must be followed, otherwise the story fails and otherwise looks ridiculous. And often I've found this many times. And we come to the Romantic Poets, often calling themselves prophets, who wrote in styles we'd assume were period. But, I'm writing in this style without having learned it. I don't know how I'm doing it... I really don't actually. I had thought maybe I was plagiarizing, but I had never read anything like Paradise Lost to plagiarize. I did have a dream, once, of Hail Britannica, and it frightened me because I didn't understand what the dream meant. And I had dealt with obscure dreams---which lent to some of my stories---and it's often a wonder to me how this can be the case. Because I don't really recall any kind of reason to have these dreams---there is one obscure memory, and a prayer only to Jesus attached to it---but other than that, there is no reason for me to doubt the dreams' authenticity. So... it's scary to me how this works. But, somehow my stories are communicated to me. And I believe they are given by One Shepherd. If they are truly wise. And that gatekeeper is David, whom we should give the glory to, as in Christ Jesus, Messiah who comes to Conquer. And there is a latent angst in me... it's strange. I don't believe the stories are mine... I believe they are David's. I believe Barrie's stories are also David's, because they are wise. And I think when we rebel against David---or Christ---we tend to lose the authentic ownership of our craft. We begin to question them--- which is often what writers do at some point. I remember Ray Bradbury in an interview saying that he questioned his own words and wordings---maybe because he, in a sense, was trying to wrestle with the ownership of them. Bradbury became a Christian---or rather, always was despite some protest---and I think the ownership of these stories belongs to Christ, like all other things. If we are to be successful, we have to offer the story to Christ, or really anything for that matter. And the fact that people are coming to these notions independently of me, suggests something rather odd and haunting. That is there are prevailing ideas outside of us, and forces outside of our own comprehension. Barrie, J. M.. Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens. Project Guttenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26998/26998-h/26998-h.htm. 2/13/22. Web.
B. K. Neifert 